Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Adaptation of the Contract in Turkish Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Effects of Financial Crises on the Binding Force of Contracts - Renegotiation, Rescission or Revision

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 17))

  • 728 Accesses

Abstract

Turkish Law has adopted the renowned principle of pacta sunt servanda. Therefore, the former Code of Obligations numbered 818 did not provide a general provision for neither the adaptation of the contract and nor the termination of the contract in case of hardship. Even then, the Court of Cassation and legal scholars accepted adaptation of contracts in the occurrence of the unexpected event, such as economic crises. The new Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 which came into effect as of 1 July 2012 has introduced a general clause for adaption of the contract. Accordingly, the obligor may demand the adaptation or the revocation of the contract if adaptation is not possible through meeting all of the required conditions. This chapter presents an overview of the conditions and the consequences of adaptation of the contract under Turkish Law and specifically analyzes the option for renegotiation of the contract in comparison to the UNIDROIT Principles (6.2.3), Principles of European Contract Law (PECL 6:111) and Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR III.-1:110).

This article is published in Turkish in “Symposium of New Turkish Code of Obligations, İstanbul, 2012” edited by Inceoglu upon whose approval, was updated later by the author and translated by Att. Yasemen Öztürkcan (Istanbul Bar Association) and edited by Att. Işıl Ergeç (Istanbul Bar Association, Graduate student in Civil Law at Istanbul University). English translation of the article is also published in the book “Turkish National Reports to the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law” edited by Rona Serozan and Başak Başoğlu, and published by Vedat Kitapçılık upon whose approval, is contributed to this volume.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here in after referred to as “TCO”. Law numbered 6098 of 11 January 2011. Official Gazette numbered 27836 of 4 February 2011.

  2. 2.

    For example; Italian Civil Code art. 1467, German Civil Code BGB § 313, Portuguese Civil Code art. 437/438, Greek Civil Code art. 388, Civil Code of Argentina art. 1198, Brezilian Civil Code art. m. 478, Algerian Civil Code art. 107, Egyptian Civil Code art. 147. Also UNIDROIT Principles (PICC 6.2.1-6.2.3), PECL 6:111 and Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR III.-1:110).

  3. 3.

    Translated by Özel (2013) Article 138.

  4. 4.

    It is emphasized by the doctrine that these expressions are not synonyms and have major differences. Draetta and Lake (1996), p. 178.

  5. 5.

    Tunçomağ (1967), p. 887.

  6. 6.

    Hausheer and Jaun (2003) ZGB Art. 2 N. 114.

  7. 7.

    Law numbered 4721 of 22 November 2001. Official Gazette numbered 24607 of 8 December 2001.

  8. 8.

    Turkish Court of Cassation (Hereinafter referred as “Y.”) General Assembly of Civil Chambers (Hereinafter referred as “HGK”), E. 2203/13-332, 2003/340, T. 7.5.2003; YHGK, E. 2003/13-599, 2003/599, T. 15.10.2003, YHGK E. 2010/14-14, K. 2010–15, T. 27.1.2010; YHGK 1998/815, 1998/835, T. 18.11.1998, Schwarz (1944), pp. 186–202; Feyzioğlu (1947); Gürsoy (1950); Erman (1979); Tekinay et al. (1993), pp. 783–784; Burcuoğlu (1995), p. 41 ss.; Serozan (2014), § 20; Oğuzman and Öz (2010), p. 156; Baysal (2009), p. 89 ff.

  9. 9.

    Y. 11. Civil Chamber (Hereinafter referred as “HD.”) 12.12.1994, E. 1994/5786, K. 1994/9585; For another decision of the Court of Appeal in this matter stating that the special conditions of the banks should be taken into consideration regarding the adaptation of the contract, see Y. 11. HD. 01.04.2002, E. 2001/10794, K. 2002/2870; On the other hand, for another decision accepting the adaptation of the foreign exchange credit loan contract, see Y. 13. HD. 06.04.1995, E. 1995/145, K. 1995/3339.

  10. 10.

    Burcuoğlu (1995), p. 41 ff.; Burcuoğlu (1996), p. 76 ff.; Baykal (1998), pp. 231–265; Serozan (2014) § 20 N. 10; Baysal (2009), p. 74 ff.

  11. 11.

    Y. 11. HD. 01.04.2002, E. 2001/10794 K. 2002/2870, YHGK, 19.02.1997, E. 1996/11-762, K. 1997/77, YKD 1997/5, pp. 681–682; YHGK 19.02.1997, E. 1996/11-674, K. 1997/87.

  12. 12.

    YHGK 17.09.1997, E. 1997/11-460 K. 1997/651; Y. 11. HD. 01.04.2002, E. 2001/10794 K. 2002/2870.

  13. 13.

    Oktay-Özdemir (2007), pp. 980–993; Y. 3. HD. E. 2005/5426, K. 2005/5859, T. 26.5.2005; Y. 3. HD. E. 2003/6477, K. 2003/6152, T. 20.5.2003, also see Y. 3. HD. E. 2003/1941, K. 2003/2097, T. 4.3.2003; Y. 3. HD. 07.10.2004, E. 2004/11065, K. 2004/10658).

  14. 14.

    YHGK 30.10.2002 E. 2002/13-852, K. 2002/864, Yargı Dünyası, Şubat 2003, N. 86, pp. 38–43.

  15. 15.

    Y. 13. HD. 9.6.2005, E. 2005/1874, K. 2005/9749.

  16. 16.

    Law numbered 6102 of 13 January 2011. Official Gazette numbered 27846 of 14 February 2011.

  17. 17.

    YHGK., 18.4.1984 T., E. 11–139, K.426 (Uygur 2003, pp. 4029–4030).

  18. 18.

    Y. 15. HD., 2.6.1987 T., E. 26, K.2433 (Uygur 2003, art. 117, pp. 4031/4032).

  19. 19.

    YHGK 15.10.2003 E.2003/13-599 K. 2003/599; YHGK 07.5.2003 E. 2003/13-332, K. 2003/340; Y. 13. HD. 28.6.2004, E. 2004/2610, K. 2004/10082, Y. 13. HD. 23.9.2003, E. 2003/5912, K. 2003/10490; Y. 13. HD. 3.7.2003, E. 2003/4607, K. 2003/9022; Y. 13. HD. 10.6.2003, E. 2003/3622, K. 2003/7636.

  20. 20.

    Erman (1979), pp. 80–81; Tandoğan (1989), pp. 241–242; Arat (2006), p. 105.

  21. 21.

    Baysal (2009), pp. 161–162.

  22. 22.

    YHGK 19.02.1997 E. 1996/11-762, K. 1997/77 in YKD 1997/5, s.681-682; YHGK, 18.11.1998, E. 1998/13-815, K.1998/835, Yasa 2000/1, p. 66 ff.

  23. 23.

    Serozan (2014), § 20 N. 8; Tekinay et al. (1993), p. 368, 1007; Arat (2006), p. 135; Kaplan (2007), pp. 150–151; Erman (1979)), p. 85 ff.; Jäggi and Gauch (1980) Art. 18 OR N. 673; Bischoff (1983), p. 216; Merz (1966) in Berner Kommentar Art. 2 ZGB, N. 227; Deschenaux (1942), pp. 509a–636a, p. 558a ff.

  24. 24.

    Kramer and Schmidlin (1986) in Berner Kommentar Art. 18 OR N. 342; Deschenaux (1942), p. 559a.

  25. 25.

    YHGK, E. 2003/13-332, 2003/340, T. 7.5.2003; YHGK, E. 2003/13-599, 2003/599, T. 15.10.2003.

  26. 26.

    Y. 13. HD. 12.2.1981, E. 1981/147, K. 1981/932, YKD 1982, p. 1561 ff.

  27. 27.

    Cf. BGB § 313, PICC 6.2.2, PECL 6:111. The party “against whom the balance of benefits is reversed” is also mentioned in some decisions of the Court of Appeal. Y. 11. HD., 4.11.1984 T., E. 4170, K.4731 (Uygur 2003, p. 292 vd.), this expression is also proper, however the term of “aggrieved party” is not only more brief but also commonly used in comparative law.

    Burcuoğlu (1995), p. 29 ff.

  28. 28.

    Erman (1979), p. 89.

  29. 29.

    Deschenaux (1942), p. 561a.

  30. 30.

    Jäggi and Gauch (1980) Art. 18 OR N. 674; Kramer and Schmidlin (1986) in Berner Kommentar Art. 18 OR N. 344; Bischoff (1983), pp. 218–219; Merz (1966) in Berner Kommentar Art. 2 ZGB N. 227; Tercier (1979), p. 208; Deschenaux (1942), p. 561a ss; Larenz (1963), p. 139.

  31. 31.

    Jäggi and Gauch (1980) Art. 18 OR N. 674.

  32. 32.

    Jäggi and Gauch (1980) Art. 18 OR N. 674 Kramer and Schmidlin (1986) in Berner Kommentar Art. 18 OR N. 344; Bischoff (1983), p. 219.

  33. 33.

    Baysal (2009), p. 190 ff.

  34. 34.

    YHGK 1.10.1997, E. 1997/13-493, K. 1997/87.

  35. 35.

    Baysal (2009), p. 111 ff.

  36. 36.

    Eren (2014), p. 441; Bischoff (1983), p. 220.

  37. 37.

    Y. 13. HD. 21.04.2003, E. 2002/15326, K. 2003/4726, (in: İBD 2003, pp. 805–809, (p. 809)).

  38. 38.

    Burcuoğlu (1995), p. 12; Arat (2006), p. 123; Kaplan (2007), p. 153.

  39. 39.

    Burcuoğlu (1995), p. 13.

  40. 40.

    Burcuoğlu (1995), p. 13; Arat (2006), p. 124; Kramer and Schmidlin (1986) in Berner Kommentar Art. 18 OR N. 345; Jäggi and Gauch (1980) Art. 18 OR N. 675; Bischoff, p. 219.

  41. 41.

    Larenz (1963), p 137 ff., Jäggi and Gauch (1980) Art. 18 OR N. 676; Kramer and Schmidlin (1986) in Berner Kommentar Art. 18 OR N. 345; cf. Bischoff (1983), p. 220.

  42. 42.

    Atamer (2006), p. 16.

  43. 43.

    Fikentscher (1971), p. 107.

  44. 44.

    For the discussions regarding CISG art. 79 also see Baysal (2009), p. 71 ff.; Atamer (2005), p. 463 ff.; Dewez et al. (2011), pp. 101–154.

  45. 45.

    For the discussions regarding the juridical nature of duty of renegotiation also see Baysal (2009), p. 233 ff.

  46. 46.

    In Turkish Law, Gürsoy is of the opinion that the aggrieved party should propose negotiation by notifying the other party before she/he exercises a yenilik doğuran hak regarding the adaptation of the contract; according to the author, in the case where the aggrieved party does not make the notification, this can be excused only if it is certain that the proposal for negotiation would be rejected or negotiation is not possible because of hardship. Gürsoy (1950), p. 173.

References

  • Arat, A. 2006. Sözleşmenin Değişen Şartlara Uyarlanması. Ankara: Seçkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atamer, Y.M. 2005. Uluslararası Satım Sözleşmelerine İlişkin Birleşmiş Milletler Antlaşması (CISG) Uyarınca Satıcının Yükümlülükleri ve Sözleşmeye Aykırılığın Sonuçları. İstanbul: Beta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atamer, Y.M. 2006. Revize Edilmiş Türk Borçlar Kanunu Tasarısı’na İlişkin Değerlendirme ve Teklifler. Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi 6: 8–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baykal, M. 1998. Yabancı Para Üzerinden Yapılan Banka Kredi Sözleşmelerinde Uyarlama Sorunu ve Yargıtay’ın Yaklaşımı. BATİDER 231–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysal, B. 2009. Sözleşmenin Uyarlanması. İstanbul: Levha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff, J. 1983. Vertragsrisiko und clausula rebus sic stantibus. Zürich: Schulthess.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burcuoğlu, H. 1995. Son Mahkeme Kararları ve Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Hukukta Beklenmeyen Hal ve Uyarlama – Taşınmaz Kirası Sözleşmelerinde ve Dövize Endeksli Kredi Sözleşmelerinde Uyarlama Uygulaması. İstanbul: Filiz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burcuoğlu, H. 1996. Hukukta Uyarlama – Özellikle Taşınmaz Kiralarında ve (Dövize Endeksli) Kredi Sözleşmelerinde Uyarlama in MHAD Prof. Dr. İsmet Sungurbey’e Armağan: 76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deschenaux, H. 1942. La revision des contrats par le juge. ZSR 61: 509a–636a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewez, J., C. Ramberg, R.M. Uribe, R. Cabrillac, and L.P.S.M. Pradera. 2011. The duty to renegotiate an international sales contract under CISG in case of hardship and the use of the Unidroit principles. ERPL 1-2011: 101–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draetta, U., and R. Lake. 1996. Contrats Internationaux: Pathologie et Remèdes. Trans. Laure Tournefier. Bruxelles: Victoria Vohman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eren, F. 2014. Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler. Ankara: Yetkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erman, Hasan. 1979. İstisna Sözleşmesinde Beklenilmeyen Haller (BK. 365/2). İstanbul: Istanbul Universitesi, Hukuk Fakultesi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyzioğlu, T. 1947. İdare Hukukunda Emprevizyon Nazariyesi (Beklenmeyen Haller Meselesi). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikentscher, W. 1971. Die Geschäftsgrundlage als Frage des Vertragsrisikos. Münih: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürsoy, K.T. 1950. Hususî Hukukda Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus- Emprevizyon Nazariyesi. Ankara: Güney matbaacılık ve gazetecilik t.a.o.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausheer, H., and M. Jaun. 2003. Die Einleitungsartikel des ZGB, Art. 1–10 ZGB. Bern: Stämpfli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäggi, P., and P. Gauch. 1980. Kommentar zum schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, V. Band, Obligationenrecht, Teilband V 1b (Art. 18 OR), Zürich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, İ. 2007. Hakimin Sözleşmeye Müdahalesi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, E.A., and B. Schmidlin. 1986. Berner Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Allgemeine Einleitung in das schweizerische Obligationenrecht und Kommentar zu Art. 1–18 OR, Teilband 1, Art. 18 OR, Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz, K. 1963. Geschäftsgrundlage und Vertragserfüllung. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merz, H. 1966. Berner Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Einleitung, Art. 1–10 ZGB, Art. 2 ZGB, Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oğuzman, K., and T. Öz. 2010. Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler. İstanbul: Vedat Kitapçılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oktay-Özdemir, S. 2007. Mal ayrılığı rejiminde eşlerin mali yükümlülükleri ve evlilik sona erdikten sonra diğer eşin malvarlığında bulunan katkıların iadesi in Prof. Dr. Ergon A. Çetingil ve Prof. Dr. Rayegân Kender’e 50. Birlikte Çalışma Yılı Armağanı, İstanbul: 980–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özel, Ç. 2013. Turkish code of obligations. Ankara: Seçkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, A. 1944. Harbin Hususi Akitler Üzerindeki Tesiri. Adliye Dergisi 186–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serozan, R. 2014. İfa – İfa Engelleri – Haksız Zenginleşme (Kocayusufpaşaoğlu/Hatemi/Serozan/Arpacı; Borçlar Hukuku Genel Bölüm – Üçüncü Cilt). İstanbul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tandoğan, H. 1989. Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, V.II, İstisna (Eser) ve Vekalet Sözleşmeleri Vekaletsiz İş Görme Kefalet ve Garanti Sözleşmeleri, Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tekinay, S.S., S. Akman, H. Burcuoğlu, and A. Altop. 1993. Tekinay Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler. İstanbul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tercier, P. 1979. Clausula rebus sic stantibus JdT I: 208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunçomağ, K. 1967. Alman Hukukunda Borcun İfasında Aşırı Güçlük (Muamelenin Temeli) ile ilgili Objektif Görüşler. İÜHFM: 887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uygur, T. 2003. Açıklamalı-İçtihatlı Borçlar Kanunu Sorumluluk ve Tazminat hukuku, vol. 4, 109–213. Ankara: Seçkin. 2. b.

    Google Scholar 

19.5.1 List of Cases

  • Turkish Court of Cassation

    Google Scholar 

  • 11. Civil Chamber dated 01.04.2002, E. 2001/10794 K. 2002/2870.

    Google Scholar 

  • 11. Civil Chamber dated 01.04.2002, numbered E. 2001/10794 K. 2002/2870.

    Google Scholar 

  • 11. Civil Chamber dated 12.12.1994, E. 1994/5786, K. 1994/9585.

    Google Scholar 

  • 11. Civil Chamber dated 4.11.1984 T., E. 4170, K.4731 in Uygur T (2003) Açıklamalı-İçtihatlı Borçlar Kanunu Sorumluluk ve Tazminat hukuku, Madde 109–213, V. 4, 2. b., Ankara: 292.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Civil Chamber dated 06.04.1995, E. 1995/145, K. 1995/3339.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Civil Chamber dated 10.6.2003, E. 2003/3622, K. 2003/7636.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Civil Chamber dated 12.2.1981, E. 1981/147, K. 1981/932 in YKD 1982: 1561.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Civil Chamber dated 21.04.2003, E. 2002&15326, K. 2003/4726 in İBD 2003: 805–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Civil Chamber dated 23.9.2003, E. 2003/5912, K. 2003/10490.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Civil Chamber dated 28.6.2004, E. 2004/2610, K. 2004/10082.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Civil Chamber dated 3.7.2003, E. 2003/4607, K. 2003/9022.

    Google Scholar 

  • 13. Chamber dated 9.6.2005, E. 2005/1874, K. 2005/9749.

    Google Scholar 

  • 15. Civil Chamber dated 2.6.1987 T., E. 26, K.2433 in Uygur T (2003) Açıklamalı-İçtihatlı Borçlar Kanunu Sorumluluk ve Tazminat hukuku, Madde 109–213, V. 4, 2. b., Ankara: 4031–4032.

    Google Scholar 

  • 3. Civil Chamber dated 07.10.2004, E. 2004/11065, K. 2004/10658.

    Google Scholar 

  • 3. Civil Chamber dated 20.5.2003 numbered E. 2003/6477, K. 2003/6152.

    Google Scholar 

  • 3. Civil Chamber dated 26.5.2005 numbered E. 2005/5426, K. 2005/5859.

    Google Scholar 

  • 3. Civil Chamber dated 4.3.2003 numbered E. 2003/1941, K. 2003/2097.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 07.5.2003 numbered E. 2003/13-332, K. 2003/340.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 1.10.1997 numbered E. 1997/13-493, K. 1997/87.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 15.10.2003 numbered E. 2003/13-599, 2003/599.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 17.09.1997 numbered E. 1997/11-460 K. 1997/651.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 18.11.1998 numbered E. 1998/13-815, K.1998/835 in Yasa 2000/1: 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 18.4.1984 numbered E. 11–139, K.426 in Uygur T (2003) Açıklamalı-İçtihatlı Borçlar Kanunu Sorumluluk ve Tazminat hukuku, Madde 109–213, V. 4, 2. b., Ankara: 4029–4030.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 19.02.1997 numbered E. 1996/11-762, K. 1997/77 in: YKD 1997/5, p 681–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 19.02.1997 numbered E. 1996/11-674, K. 1997/87.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 27.1.2010 numbered E. 2010/14-14, K. 2010–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 30.10.2002 numbered E. 2002/13-852, K. 2002/864 in Yargı Dünyası, February 2003–86: 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated 7.5.2003 numbered E. 2003/13-332, 2003/340.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of Civil Chambers, dated numbered 15.10.2003E. 2003/13-599, 2003/599.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Başak Baysal

Authors
  1. Başak Baysal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Başak Baysal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Istanbul Kemerburgaz University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Başak Başoğlu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baysal, B. (2016). The Adaptation of the Contract in Turkish Law. In: Başoğlu, B. (eds) The Effects of Financial Crises on the Binding Force of Contracts - Renegotiation, Rescission or Revision. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27256-6_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27256-6_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27254-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27256-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation